IPv6 routing /48s
michael at rancid.berkeley.edu
Mon Nov 17 23:20:56 UTC 2008
On 11/17/08 14:46, Robert.E.VanOrmer at frb.gov wrote:
> ARIN claims they are seeing /48s routed, at least in their route tables. I
> have seen some new momentum on the allocation of /32's, don't know if that
> is in response to rules like this?? Would be awefully difficult for our
> organization to come up with the rationale to need 65K /48s internally to
> justify a /32.
You may want to post this issue to the ARIN PPML list (see
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html if you're not already
subscribed), as that might be a useful venue for discussion as well.
You're right in noting that this is a catch-22. ARIN and other RIRs are
now giving out PI /48s, but there is still a notion that /32 is
considered the maximum routable prefix length. However, UCB sees a lot
of globally-routed /48s (and /35s, /40s, etc.) in our DFZ routing table.
(I also see some /48s disaggregated from a /32 and announced in at
least one non-ARIN region, but I am sure this is happening elsewhere.
:-( ) So, I do think that /48 is beginning to be the new /32 when it
comes to prefix filtering, but I can also understand those who want to
hold to the more strict IPv6 filtering policies.
I think in the end, we are going to end up generally accepting up to
/48s. Basically, we're going to break the routing table anyway--the
number of potential /32s is more than enough to do that, and forcing
a. needs to be multi-homed; and
b. needs more than 1-2 subnets
to get a /32 has to be a waste, no matter how big the potential address
space is overall.
One compromise would be to require that blocks that can be aggregated be
aggregated, and then allow PI /48s. In theory, this could be enforced a
number of ways, but I am sure we're all aware of how well that works...
More information about the NANOG